Sammut rejects Mirvac meeting

Efforts by
Mirvac
’s board to douse the flames of a shareholder revolt met with little success yesterday after the investor leading a campaign to oust chairman James MacKenzie rebuffed the offer of a private meeting with the trust’s directors.

Winston Sammut of Maxim Asset Management, which owns less than 1 per cent of the listed property heavyweight, refused the overture, stressing any discussions should be held with a “wider group" of disgruntled institutional investors.

Mr Sammut intends to propose a resolution for Mr MacKenzie’s resignation at Mirvac’s annual general meeting on November 15.

The action requires the support of at least 5 per cent of the trust’s register, although investors cannot act en masse.

Each vote for the proposal must be submitted separately.

Mr Sammut piled pressure on the chairman after his demand for a broader investor meeting on the unexpected departure of managing director Nick Collishaw was greeted with silence.

In a letter addressed to Mr Sammut last week, director Peter Hawkins stressed that the Mirvac board was united behind Mr MacKenzie. Yesterday, the high-profile chairman attempted to defuse the dispute by extending an invitation to Mr Sammut to a private meeting.

In an email exchange seen by The Australian Financial Review, Mr MacKenzie asked Mr Sammut to meet the directors after a board meeting next Monday.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

He wrote: “We believed that [Mr Hawkin’s] email addressed your concerns but it is clear from your response that is not the case. Our Board is happy to meet with you to clarify any further concerns you have."

Mr Sammut responded: “I do not want to be placed in a position where information, whatever that might be, is only made available to me and not a wider group of investors.

“Accordingly I would only be willing to accept the offer of a meeting with the Board if that were extended to also include those other institutions who have an interest in the outcome of the meeting."

He stressed: “I have no control over what course of action each of the institutions may elect to pursue, as I have no say in how they deal with their holding."